myartspace Open forum » Critique the Art Critics

1. balhatain
   Member

   I’ve read some buzz about the ArtPrize competition. A few art critics and NYC art dealers have called it a sign of desperation rather than an opportunity for artists-- implying that anyone who enters it is 'just desperate'. In fact, one critic of the competition suggested that anyone who wins the competition will never be accepted in the mainstream art world. The same person suggested that the $400,000+ cash prize should have been donated to existing art programs or as grants to artists who are represented by notable galleries. He actually made the case that only a few should dictate what is 'good' art or 'bad' art instead of the general public.

   The main point of criticism about the competition is the fact that the public will decide the winner. Thus, those who have spoken out about it feel that the competition is worthless to the winners since the competition does not involve professional jurors. I think this reveals that some key players in the mainstream art world are wary of online juried art competitions in general regardless of how they are judged. After all, there have been a number of online art competitions involving jurors from the TATE and other high profile museums and galleries (including myartspace.com competitions) and, as far as I know, none of the ArtPrize naysayers embraced those competitions. Thus, it would seem that certain individuals are not very accepting of online art competitions in general-- or the way the internet is changing the art world for that matter.

   There is obviously a fear of public opinion coming from those circles. In fact, one comment suggested that if the chosen work does not reflect the choices of professional art critics it would mean, at least in the eyes of the public, that the opinion of high profile critics does not really matter in dictating public taste for art. I think people already know that though-- people like what they like regardless of who said what, when, and where. It is amazing to observe the unease that the internet has caused for traditionalists within the core of the art world. It is almost like the internet is forcing a few key figures to release their grip-- or at least has them concerned about their relevance in the future. What say you?

   Link of interest:

   http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2009/04/thorny-authoritarian-issue-open-thread.html

   Posted 6 months ago #

2. jlathram
   Member

   As an Artist with a decent international following, as well as a teacher and critic in the local art scene in Columbus, Ohio, I have to say that I usually do not pay a fee to enter shows. Most times I am asked to participate in shows. I am at the point in my career that I should and do receive stipends to be in exhibits.

   There are too many exhibits where artists are asked to pay a somewhat large fee, which is implied to go the maintenance of said exhibition.

   As we can all attest on twitter, the tweets to come see "my art" results more often than not, in some pretty bad art.

   Online exhibits may or may not attest to the successful career of an artist. I think it is still too soon to tell in the relatively new digital age (compared to the entire time line of art history.

   I don't think I would want the general public voting on my work as it is conceptual and can be somewhat controversial depending on the medium I put before the public. I spent seven years in college first being uneducated about the historical contexts of Art to a MFA in Art and Technology. I think I have a better understanding of the language of art as it pertains to contemporary culture than someone that considers the "hang in there kitty" posters of the 70's as art. And yes, I do know someone will perhaps start a dialogue about that remark. Perhaps after having an academic dialogue concerning said subject matter as well as a thesis or two written on the the "Importance of Feel Good Kitten Posters of the 1970's on the American Psyche" then it may be considered a form of art.

   If the winning entry was another "bedazzled" pink unicorn, I would seriously worry about the state of art.

   j. s. lathram III, Colmbus, Ohio

   Posted 6 months ago #

3. balhatain
   Member

   Good points, especially concerning conceptual art. I guess the real question what do we do to allow the public to be more informed about art that they may not exactly 'see' as art? I don't think the walled garden approach has worked. I suppose this comes back to early art education and how those classes should be improved.

   Posted 6 months ago #

4. scversillee
   Member

   Had to chuckle at the notion that $250,000 cold hard cash would be considered "worthless to the winner".

   A publicly judged art competition...why not? Frankly I'm tired of the elitist notion of the supposed "unwashed masses" needing hand-holding to be able to determine what they find aesthetically pleasing. I doubt most artists applying for the prize will be doing so to seek hardcore critiques or validations of their work anyway, they'll be applying for the money, so that pretense can be dismissed out of pocket.

   Even if the contest takes on a American Idol-esque air, I say whatever can bring the general public closer to experiencing art, the better, because as balhatain mentioned, the walled garden approach has not worked to the larger art community's benefit, instead it seeks to sustain the livelihoods of a rarified few artists while making the general population feel like simpletons for not "getting" these chosen people's work.

   What does give me pause is the notion that only people in Grand Rapids can vote, not very inclusive for an international competition, and much like Idol and similar contests, I have no doubt there will be attempts to game the system rendering sheer talent less relevant to the final outcome. On the website's FAQ page it says that artists should try to hang around Grand Rapids to garner favor for their work, so their goes the idea that the work should speak for itself. And last criticism; the prize money could have been dibbied up differently to give more opportunities for a larger number of artists to win.

   I think there's enough room for this social experiment to exist without ruffling the other side's feathers, after all if you have closed off the water spigot to a mere drip, people will seek water elsewhere.

   Posted 5 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.